JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---This group of four writ petitions is disposed of by this common judgment since the controversy raised therein is identical in respect of identical contracts and Tender conditions whereby the petitioners were given contracts for supply of lorries with labourers for the removal of silt, debris, household waste materials etc. as per the rates stated in the Schedule-I annexed to the contract.

2. For the sake of brevity, we intend to refer to the facts of writ petition No. 3504 of 1989. The petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Super Transport as its sole proprietor. In or about the month of September 1984, the respondents invited tenders for supply of lorries with labourers for removal of silt, debris household waste materials etc. from "A" ward of the first respondent, the petitioner responded to the said invitation for tenders and submitted tender on 16th October, 1984. By letters dated 31st October, 1984 and 10th November, 1984 addressed by the Director, Solid Waste Management Department. The petitioner was asked to take up the work of supply of lorries with labourers for removal of silt, debris household waste materials etc. from A Ward at the rate of consideration quoted by the petitioner in Schedule-I of the Tender dated 16th October, 1984. By a further letter dated 30th November, 1984, the petitioner was asked to continue the said work for a further period of one month from 1st December, 1984 to 31st December, 1984 at the same rate as quoted in Schedule 1 of the tender. By a subsequent letter dated 24th January, 1985, the petitioner was asked to carry on the work as already granted to him till finalisation of the matter by the Administrator (Standing Committee) or till 31st January, 1985 whichever was earlier. Ultimately, by a letter dated 20th February, 1985, the respondents informed the petitioner that the tender submitted by the petitioner has been accepted at the rate quoted by him in Schedule 1 of the tender for the period from 10th November, 1984 to 31st August, 1985. According to the petitioner though the tender of the petitioner was accepted only for a period ending 31st August, 1985, as per the request of the respondents the petitioner continued to carry on the said work of supply of lorries with labourers and equipments for removal of silt, debris and household waste materials etc. till September 1988. The case of the petitioner is that as per the terms of the tender accepted by the respondents in the event of the respondents directing the petitioner to divert lorries to any other dumping grounds other than the principal dumping grounds, the petitioner would be entitled to charge at the rate of Rs. 18/- per kilometer per cubic meter for removal of silt, debris household waste materials from A ward ward of the respondent No. 1. The main dumping grounds as identified by the respondents were Wadala, Deonar and Dharavi dumping grounds, but the petitioner was directed to divert lorries to Wellington Garden dumping ground and since Wellington Garden dumping ground was not a notified dumping ground, the computation of payment was required to be made at the rate per kilometer per cubic meter as provided in the tender. The petitioner has stated that by a letter dated 21st March, 1985, the petitioner was called upon to issue a consent letter for receiving payment at the principal dumping ground rate in respect of lorries which would be diverted to the G.D. Somani Marg dumping ground and J.B. Bhosale Marg dumping ground. In reply thereto the petitioner, with a view to maintain cordial relations and under protest, agreed that he would carry out the work at the rate of principal dumping ground rate subject to the condition that in the event for any similar work if payments were made on kilometer per cubic meter basis, for any other contractors in any other work, then the petitioner would also become entitled to payment on the said basis. It is averred by the petitioner that fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document